SUPPORTERS OF expanded solar energy won a moral victory last week in Atlanta — a move that will spark an important public debate in the Georgia Legislature next year about where and how Georgians purchase electricity produced by the sun.

The Georgia Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities throughout the state, voted 3-2 to endorse efforts by a start-up company to overturn a law that has divided the Georgia into geographic monopolies for 94 utilities run by cities, rural cooperatives and Georgia Power Co.

This upstart company, Georgia Solar Utilities Inc., wants its own monopoly as a generator of solar power, with permission to sell to retail customers.

However, this firm has a built-in problem. Because it can’t produce electricity when the sun isn’t shining, it will always be dependent on more traditional power companies to serve customers.

What the PSC did was set the table for lawmakers to consider changes to the 40-year-old Territorial Act, which carved up the state into regions. The theory behind this measure was that the public was better served through a monopoly system. The question for lawmakers next year is whether that system is outdated.

Consumers should pay attention. Several factors are in play.

Fostering competition is generally a positive thing. At the same time, the public needs to be concerned about companies that cherry-pick — serving only certain neighborhoods or regions to maximize profits, while ignoring others. Some consumers could be left out.

Then there’s the cloudy-day dilemma. Someone has to build and operate power plants so customers always have electricity. This comes at a cost.

Still, the idea of pushing more pollution-free solar energy is laudable. It’s certainly becoming a more affordable alternative, although electricity produced by fossil fuels remains less costly to produce.

For example, a huge obstacle to solar has been its relatively high cost. But that’s changing. The cost of photovoltaic panels is coming down. Indeed, it dropped 30 percent in the first six months of this year due to a price war between Chinese producers.

Clearly, technology is changing the game. But politics play a role as well.

PSC member Doug Everett, who voted for the solar resolution, said he was concerned that the Obama administration would push federal rules that would make burning coal prohibited or prohibitively expensive. “Just where are we going to get the generation to replace the coal industry?” he asked.

Georgia Power is investing in nuclear power as well as more solar to meet the state’s future energy needs.

But a majority on the PSC would like the state to dial up more electricity produced by the sun. Lawmakers next year will have to decide whether they agree and whether the public should go along.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

One of many things I learned from attending the Solar Forum hosted by Center for a Sustainable Coast was that maybe Georgia Power is not living up to their end of the deal when they were given an energy producing monopoly in our state back in 1973. Apparently, their end of the deal was to provide energy to the citizens of Georgia at the most affordable, beneficial and reliable way. A few of the PSC members who voted on the Territorial Act of 1973 admit that the new energy technologies that exist today were not considered at that time, and may now have changed the playing field, and suggest the Act itself must be updated.
First, let us consider solar energy. A pair of number crunchers, Robert Green and Shane Owl-Greason, have presented a persuasive case that solar can provide cheaper, cleaner, abundant and reliable energy to augment the existing grid of electrical power in our state, which is rated in the top level nationwide for available sun. When presented with this data, Georgia Power immediately applied for permitting to build 240MW of additional solar voltaics. But why should we limit ourselves to this, when it is a drop in the bucket for what the future demands? Investors are literally salivating to start building solar in such a solar rich area, but Georgia Power refuses to let go of a bad investment decision that will shortly result in another request for rate hikes to pay for increasing costs of Plant Vogtle II. Even their turn towards natural gas will be reliant on an uncertain pricing market for yet another fossil fuel.
Solar, on the other hand, is predictable in construction cost (prices are actually dropping every year), and eventually “fuel free.” So fuel costs cannot fluctuate. The energy is produced at the peak time for demand. It is literally water-free, so it will reduce the stressful use of our fresh drinking water, used so heavily in coal and nuclear. Germany just showed us that they (a country whose sun exposure is similar to Alaska) can produce 50% of their national energy demand during the peak hour of a sunny day. So certainly we can shoot for 10% for Georgia, instead of the fraction of 1% that Georgia Power envisions. Jobs and state revenues also figure into anyone’s view of the potential of courting this new industry to our state.
So what is stopping us …. or those who want to invest in this capital venture? The State Legislature, and the Territorial Act of 1973. I will let you muse on what needs to be done next year to make sure legislation “gets on the agenda of the correct committee” and on to the floor of the legislature for a vote.
My thought is, if this is such a volatile subject and our legislators FEAR decision-making, why not take a path they are using more and more frequently? Let the voters decide.